Wow so many good comments and such a poor response rate on my part. Those of you living in the Northeastern U.S. will forgive me as the weather has been wonderful (the first of the season). Starting from the top down . . .
Richard is spot on, this approach is very much “reliant on a smooth service channel between IT and the Faculty and that's rare in my experience.” And as many would probably admit that this is not the norm - however it is what I think we in IT should be striving for.
I hoped in mentioning software “low in the stack” was to question a belief, by those outside the IT department, that open source educational tools will enjoy the same adoption process that OSS went through in the data center. I don't think it will, yet I hear this quite a bit as those promoting OSS reference other successful projects like Apache and Linux. The push back is longer coming from IT departments, it is coming from other campus administrators: Finance (where is the service agreement), Faculty (help desk, training issues), etc. Basically if you found a great tool for teaching and learning, you don't need to convince me that OSS is a viable option, its probably your department chair, Dean, Provost or President. So the existing debate has to evolve that really discusses the value an application (open source or not) can deliver.
I hope that I did not leave readers with a perception that vendor lock-in, community and collaboration, etc. are not applicable to end-users' requirements. These all can (and in my opinion should be) part of the evaluation criteria. Just as one may consider the strength of a company, its important to look at a community. However the code review, documentation and QA processes a community of developers might evaluate a project on is different than how faculty and students may evaluate the same community, with interests in usability, the enhancement process, delivery, etc. Again I cite my Sakai numbers.
I feel sorry that, in Richard's situation, he had to take control of his own IT needs in order to get things done. I wonder why? Maybe I am wrong and we IT folks have not come to accept OSS at the rate I had believed. However, I would be extremely embarrassed, professionally, to know that I had a group leave because they felt they could not get the support they needed. Even more embarrassing would be knowing that group (that non-IT group who don't know what they are doing) pulled it off.
So again I'll agree with Richard and risk my CIO membership card, IT departments do have too much to say over who can do what (don't tell my faculty that). A little side story . . . We recently hired a Director of Online Learning. This position was placed in the IT department before my recent arrival. (Why . . . another potential topic: where does online learning belong?) Although the position reports to the CIO, I told our new hire that I would be working for him. How am I qualified to define the tools and thus teaching and learning? I can't, and that's why we hired him.
Ken articulates, much better than I, the relationship that should exist between professionals with different roles and responsibilities. In fact, in my new position here at Delhi, I have introduced his Organizational Analysis, Audience Analysis and Project Goals worksheets that he introduced to me while at SUNY . . . . . .with a few modifications.
Many IT departments have “work requests” “project proposals” etc. These however, seem to force a separation between users who request and IT who grants, sort of a “we better get this proposal right or we won't get our widget,” us vs. them culture. So building on the good work of the org./audience analysis, I've morphed these into an interview process where IT staff can build a use case from the topics of the templates and discussions that result. This all takes place in a wiki where others who may be interested can contribute. The goal is to avoid solutions, and define problems: “We need LAMS” vs. “the asynchronous courses will consist of group work and assessment based on ongoing development of socially derived artifacts” respectively. (Ken, tell me what this means later, I feel guilty citing it in ignorance). This has been very very challenging as both groups fall back on old patterns.
“Can we acknowledge the differences in Free and proprietary software without making OSS apoint of debate and fear among faculty, administrators, etc?”
I think so as long as the debate focuses on usability, functionality and business cases, not technology. I wonder what percentage of presentations at your favorite LMS conversion (ANGEL User Conference 2007, Bb2007, MoodleMoot06 and the 7th Sakai Conference) will be dedicated to technology vs. teaching? Hmm, hold on . . .
. . . Ok after a rough hand count of the agendas posted on each LMS's convention page, I found: 84.6% of presentations at the 2006 MoodleMoot where specific to teaching and learning, 77.8% of Blackboard's where educationally focused, 74.6% of Angel's and 38.2% of Sakai's where presentations on teaching and learning. From an IT perspective Sakai wins, from a teaching and learning perspective, I imagine faculty would get more from Moodle. Both open source, two different arguments for adoption.
And fortunately, Ken, I don't think its too late. I suggest a new term, “edumagic.” It's the pedagogical counter to the technological. If I say this is not JSR-168 compliant, you tell me it's not IMS-LD compliant. So yes, I am definitely advocating for a division of labor. I have been very fortunate to work with several people who I (and many others) consider experts in their fields. Who am I to tell them what they need, or what they can have? Should facilities define teaching in a physical classroom?
But what do I say to those who may have technical questions? I answer them. If they want to know why an OSS project can be just as reliable, even more so, than a commercial option, I will tell them what I believe. I would also hope that I have their respect, and confidence, so that they know I would not recommend an application with such poor participation where one death kills the project. And that's my responsibility, a responsibility I gladly take. So then I would follow-up with what should be more relevant questions for her, focusing on her needs, and tapping her expertise: that's her responsibility.
And finally, I would be happy to share my developing IT Governance and Management documentation from Delhi (https://snydelwd.delhi.edu:8443/x/DAE ). It is still under consideration, as I try to unite my management experience and practices with my new institution. It would be nice if one could deploy and rely on a universal model. However, in my experience, I believe the truths to be universal but the implementation to be practical.
- 853 reads
